There is uncertainty about sound "Armaya".
One word can be pronounced differently with respective meanings
"Aramean" and "Gentile".
Is it true or it is some dictionary bias?
Somebody please prove that context shows that it can mean Gentile.
On the other side, using this idea one can wipe out the presence of the Arameans in the New Testament.
Personally, I do not believe a dictionary about something important unless context proves
it.
I just refuse to blindly accept that "Armya" means Gentile so far.

IPOstapyuk Wrote:There is uncertainty about sound "Armaya".
One word can be pronounced differently with respective meanings
"Aramean" and "Gentile".
Is it true or it is some dictionary bias?
Somebody please prove that context shows that it can mean Gentile.
On the other side, using this idea one can wipe out the presence of the Arameans in the New Testament.
Personally, I do not believe a dictionary about something important unless context proves
it.
I just refuse to blindly accept that "Armya" means Gentile so far.

In Revelation 9:11 (western canon) it says: "Armayt" It means 'in Aramaic'. Now, imagine, if it would mean 'in gentile language' would that not be nonsense? And if the Aramaic writer (John) would have meant Greek, why did he not write 'Yawnayit'?
Of course, the Greek version of revelation has there 'in Greek' but this is the same story as everywhere in the NT. The Greek translator simply replaced every occurrence of 'Aramaic' people and language to Greek.

Here is evidence, staring in your own eyes, that Greek translators EVEN if it would mean 'Aramaic' (armayt), according to our current lexicons/dictionaries, they still refused to translate it as such: Is the word, indicated by 'Armayt' really an Aramaic word and not a Greek 'loanword' or a 'gentile tongue' (whatever that may be)?
It says: "Shra" Which can mean 'faithful' or 'strong'. So, if 'shra' is 'gentile tongue', let somebody (Greek primacist?) stand up and explain it to me.

I know this is not hard evidence, but a good clue! (BUt unfortunately, the CoE does not accept revelation as being part of the canon)

Quote:It says: "Shra" Which can mean 'faithful' or 'strong'. So, if 'shra' is 'gentile tongue', let somebody (Greek primacist?) stand up and explain it to me.

What spell of it?

Quote:I know this is not hard evidence, but a good clue! (BUt unfortunately, the CoE does not accept revelation as being part of the canon)

I believe it is fortunately for they knew what they were doing.

It is very clear that the Aramaic style of revelation is unique, very jewish and semitic (for instance, the word 'a hearing ear' is an Aramaic idiom), and not a translation of a Greek document. But the CoE does not say it is authentic or not, but the book was not delivered to them.

I don't think there has ever been any reason that The Church of the East has given not to accept any of the Western Five, based on their content, and according to what I have read, The Church of the East didn't even find out about the book until the mid 1800s. They place them in a second place, but not rejecting them. They were not delivered unto them by the hands of the Apostles like the rest of the books.

And these other 5 books were long disputed in the West, by the Greeks and Latins, as to their authenticity and origins. Eventually it was decided by them, that they should be part of the rest of the un-disputed books. Hebrews and James, were also disputed for a time in the West, but never among The Church of the East.